Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Mercantilism and Marxism
Humanism in greek society
The idea of humanity in the medieval period
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Mercantilism and Marxism
Human Nature has been debated since the beginning of modern human existence, and everybody appears to have a different opinion on what it consists of. Humans, on one hand, are usually very predictable and easy to figure out, but on the other hand, sometimes they stray from the common conception, and therefore make everybody begin the debate over again. People have to deal with other people almost everyday, and many professions actively attempt to figure out why people do what they do and how people would act and react in specific situations. Humans as a whole have come along way in figuring others out, and yet there is so much that is not known about humans. People act differently based on many different factors, and since the start of societies, people have …show more content…
Smith is against mercantilism, which puts more government emphasis on exports than imports and typically puts high tariffs on imports. The goal of a nation, according to Smith, is to be wealthy, and that means to have plenty of affordable goods and services. To Smith, the best political order would be centered on the market. The goal would be to have a larger market so the citizens would be able to specialize more and increase production. It appears that Smith’s views on the type of political order are along the lines of what we consider capitalism today, and that Smith does not agree with the government involvement in citizen’s life. In this type of political order, the citizens profit from their product, and they also help others by hiring workers and paying rent on the property they are using. The success of the individual is determined by his or her wealth, and wealth is the amount of stuff an individual can buy with his or her money. To be a successful nation, all of the individuals have to be wealthy, and therefore the nation will be
As you can see, labor and trade are the key importance to modern wealth. Production and trade are not just needed but are essential for a country to survive. Smith makes it ideal for countries to interact and trade. Trade means you get more directs workers into jobs in which they have a comparative advantage, which means more
Adam Smith justified the ethics of capitalism by stating that it did not benefit the common man. He felt that if the government interfered, there would be proper distribution of wealth and it would result to more efficient business.
Smith and Marx agree upon the importance of capitalism as unleashing productive powers. Capitalism is born out of the division of labour... that is, it is made possible by dividing jobs up into simple tasks as a way of increasing efficiency. By increasing efficiency, then everyone can produce more than they personally need. The extra produced can go towards the accumulation of capital, (machines, more land, more tools, etc) which will allow for even more increased efficiency and production. Both thought that this increased production was great. But Marx said that capitalism was only one stage... that every country must go through capitalism, to get that increased production, but that capitalism is unstable. It requires expanding markets and will end up creating a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, with more and more people becoming poor. Because of this instability, he thought that it would eventually collapse.
Instead human nature is shown to exhibit both good and bad with dynamic results. Human nature encourages us to feel and experience a range of emotions. Happiness, sadness, love and hate are all natural feeling that helps to shape our personality. To help the elderly, to feed the poor, to shelter the homeless, to nurture a baby are all elements of human nature and incorporated into the way humans interact within society. The basic human emotions that drive people are love and hate, within these two come other emotions, sympathy, forgivness, revenge and jealousy.
Being reared in the typical capitalist community in the United States, it is much easier for me to relate to the thoughts of Adam Smith. This is not to say that I do not agree with some of the precepts of pure Communism, but like the old adage says, "Communism looks good on paper, but in practice, it is completely ineffective." Historically, this form of government does not tend to succeed because of many factors. Some of these include basic economic differences, individualism, and technology and how it advances or serves as a detriment to the state. My stance is clear: I believe that Adam Smith has the more credible stance. Beginning with the economic side of the discussion Smith takes a Western approach in his thought processes. He states in so many words that workers are continually looking for the best job and the best wage. Marx believes that a wage-labor war will break down society and cause a downfall of the economic structure. The Capitalist belief is that each individual is continually exerting himself to find the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command (Smith 15). Smith says also in paragraph 15 that it is human nature for a person to better society while bettering himself. In Adam's opinion each person has the right to the pursuit of happiness, and that each person has to take it in their own hands to advance within society. Marx disagrees by saying that when a person betters himself he does not improve but instead endangers society. For example, when the bourgeois cuts employment because of technology, the bourgeois hurts society by "…instead of rising the laborers with the progress of industry, sinks them deeper below the conditions of existence of their own class...
... and can only be dictated by the “invisible hand” of the market. Regarding monopolies, an important component of Smith’s interpretation of the free market is a variety of competition. When a part of the market becomes monopolized, it prevents the market from achieving its full earnings potential. Smith’s critique of monopolies is in the section of his work where he also critiques mercantilism. When discussing the mercantile enterprises European nations had with their colonies in the Americas, Smith shows why monopolies are not beneficial since “it is thus that the single advantage which the monopoly procures to a single order of men, is in many different ways hurtful to the general interest of the country” (311). What Smith is claiming is that in order to create wealth, a nation’s economic activities much be allowed to operate freely and with all markets possible.
Why are we the way we are? Is it because we want to be that way or because we were made that way? The debate regarding the nature of humans is one that will never end because there is so much support for each side. It is an issue that humans have spent generations pondering. Two of those people are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both have made compelling arguments regarding nature versus nurture.
In viewing 12 Angry Men, we see face to face exactly what man really is capable of being. We see different views, different opinions of men such as altruism, egoism, good and evil. It is no doubt that human beings possess either one or any of these characteristics, which make them unique. It is safe to say that our actions, beliefs, and choices separate us from animals and non-livings. The 20th century English philosopher, Martin Hollis, once said, “Free will – the ability to make decisions about how to act – is what distinguishes people from non-human animals and machines 1”. He went to describe human beings as “self conscious, rational, creative. We can fall in love, write sonnets or plan for tomorrow. We are capable of faith, hope and charity, and for that matter, of envy, hated and malice. We know truth from error, right from wrong 2.” Human nature by definition is “Characteristics or qualities that make human beings different from anything else”. With this said, the topic of human nature has been around for a very long time, it is a complex subject with no right or wrong answer. An American rabbi, Samuel Umen, gave examples of contradictions of human nature in his book, Images of Man. “He is compassionate, generous, loving and forgiving, but also cruel, vengeful, selfish and vindictive 3”. Existentialism by definition is, “The belief that existence comes before essence, that is, that who you are is only determined by you yourself, and not merely an accident of birth”. A French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, is the most famous and influential 20th - century existentialist. He summed up human nature as “existence precedes essence”. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, he explained what he meant by this. “It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will be something, and he himself will have made what he will be 4”. After watching 12 Angry Men, the prominent view on human nature that is best portrayed in the movie is that people are free to be whatever they want because as Sartre said, “people create themselves every moment of everyday according to the choices they make 5”.
Smith's formulation transcends a purely descriptive account of the transformations that shook eighteenth-century Europe. A powerful normative theory about the emancipatory character of market systems lies at the heart of Wealth of Nations. These markets constitute "the system of natural liberty" because they shatter traditional hierarchies, exclusions, and privileges.2 Unlike mercantilism and other alternative mechanisms of economic coordination, markets are based on the spontaneous and free expression of individual preferences. Rather than change, even repress, human nature to accord with an abstract bundle of values, market economies accept the propensities of humankind and are attentive to their character. They recognize and value its inclinations; not only human reason but the full panoply of individual aspirations and needs.3 Thus, for Smith, markets give full expression to individual, economic liberty.
The play, Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, shows human nature to be greedy, self-involved and vengeful. Claudius is driven by his greed to commit murder. Polonius is always looking out for himself, currying favor at the expense of anyone in his way. Hamlet thinks only of vengeance from the moment he finds out about Claudius murdering his father. Human nature has been all of these things, but it has also evolved through the ages. We can be base and cruel, but we can also show great compassion and kindness.
Human nature is a concept that has interested scholars throughout history. Many have debated over what human nature is – that is, the distinguishing characteristics that are unique to humans by nature – while others have mulled over the fact that the answer to the question “what is human nature?” may be unattainable or simply not worth pursuing. Shakespeare explores the issue of human nature in his tragedy King Lear. In his play, he attempts to portray that human nature is either entirely good or entirely evil.
How are the perceptions of human nature conveyed by individuals subject to the influence of
Tommy Jones begged, pleaded, and hoped beyond hope for that new touch screen phone that would immediately move him up the social ranks at his school. His wish was granted on Christmas morning. He was rewarded with that sleek, black phone with 4G capabilities. Two months later the next phone in that series is out, an exact clone of the orginal with the most moderate changes, and suddenly Tommy’s phone is obsolete. There was no great improvement when compared to the old model, no; the corporation knows that it will sell, no matter how small the improvement. This model of constant obsolescence has become the norm in the economy today; companies reap profits with mediocre products, completely uncaring of the consumers. To put the economy back in the hands of the consumers, a system of deregulation must be enacted to allow the marketplace to be run once again by consumer interest.
The understanding of human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that all humans tend to possess (Winkler, 1996). My basic view of human nature correlates with Charles Darwin’s nature vs. nurture theory. Human nature is influenced by both nature and nurture. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world, and nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth. An individual’s morals, values, and beliefs are developed from the nurturing aspect of their life. The environment that an individual is raised in creates their human nature. Then they go through life developing more upon their own morals, values, and beliefs. The nature vs. nurture theory is an every changing concept, and I believe that human nature changes for each individual based on their life experiences.
Dr. George Crowley’s publication, “Adam Smith: Managerial Insights from the Father of Economics,” reaffirms the belief that Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations continues to remain influential in modern management practices. By allowing economies to be fluid, Dr. Crowley argues societies are better off when businesses and consumers are free to pursue the opportunities in the free market without boundaries or restrictive government interference. Contemporary businesses are more complex and globally intertwined than they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Fundamentally managers face similar challenges as their eighteenth century counterparts, but there are more dynamics taking place in the twenty-first century economy. Academic scholars continue to debate over Adam Smith’s theories, but as Dr. Crowley correctly establishes, Smith’s economic principles provide a blue print in today’s managerial decisions.